think that these men entend the edification of Gods Church who â—rre in the maine principles and foundations of fayth and cannot stand vnlesse the Pope who hath manifestly declared himselfe an enemy of religion may sit iudge in his owne cause Chap. 3. Kellisons Motiues to Popish religion compared with the Motiues that may enduce men to embrace true Christian religion Therein also the true motiues to Popery are touched KEllison in his first Booke and fift Chapter talketh of Motiues to Christian religion but so coldely and barely as if his cause wanted life and motion First he telleth vs pag. 106. that our Sauiour Christ proued his Mission by prophecyes and miracles Among other miracles hee talketh of the strange coÌ„quest which the Apostles made of Idolatry Secondly he sayth we want reason and authoritye to perswade men to our religion being not comparable eyther to auncient Fathers or to Bellarmine Suarez and such fellowes in wit or learning or good life or antiquity or number or dignity Thirdly he talketh of consent succession But First the example of our Sauiour Christ the conquest made by Christs Apostles ouer Idolatrye maketh against the idolatrous papists For neither can the Pope prooue his vniuersall Monarchy by Prophets or by miracles nor hath any Christian man reason to adhere to papistes that want confirmation of their Popes and Masse-priestes Mission and yet bring into their Churches heathenish idolatry and much false and erronious doctrine and namely concerning the 7. Sacramentes the sacrifice of Christs body and blood in the Masse for quicke dead Popish purgatory and teaching that man by power of free will is able to worke his owne saluation that we are to make vowes and confessions to Saints to offer sacrifice in honor of them that we are to satisfie for sinnes whose guilt is remitted in Purgatory that the Pope hath power to deliuer soules out of Purgatory by his Indulgences that his Chaire is the foundatioÌ„ of the church and such like doctrines of deuils Secondly the ancient Fathers are wholy against the papistes in these poynts As for the Popes of Rome and their parasites Bellarmine Suarez and the rest they are not such as are to be bragged vpon eyther for learning wit good life or any vertue Thirdly neither are the papistes comparable in number to the Turkes Paâ—aÌ„s nor haue they eyther true succession or consent or antiquity that maketh for them Nay if the papistes would stand to these motiues they were cleerly gone For neither haue they prophesies or miracles for them Nor can the Pope or the Masse-priests prooue their mission by miracles nor doth antiquity make for them As for good life this K. may be much ashamed to speake of it the filthynes of Popes Cardinals Masse-priestes Monkes Nonnes and Friars being so notorious to the worlde and recorded in so many storyes and actes of Councels What then is the reason that so many adhere to papistes and what are the motiues that enduce so many to like their religion Forsooth first Fire and Sword For they kill all that will not receiue the Popes marke or that once mutter against their idolatrous religion Secondly secret and trecherous practises against all that shall once dare to professe the truth Masse-priestes brewe treason and rebellion Iesuites set on assassinors The Pope hath his Agents with all Princes Neither doth he or his Agents omit any occasion to stirre vp Princes to make warre against them that professe the truth and to persecute them to death Thirdly excoÌ„municating and killing and poysoning of Kings opposite to the Popes tyranny By the Popes practice K. Henry the 8. and Quéene Elizabeth were often in danger here in England By the trechery of the Leaguers King Henry the 3. was slayne and Henry the 4. wounded and brought to great extremity in France Henry of Lucemburgh was poysoned by a Dominican Fryar Frederic the 2. was empoysoned and in the end murdered as Matthew Paris doth signifie and this no dout by the Popes practise The 5. of Nouember anno 1605. a trayne of gunpowder was layd by certaine Papistes vnder the vpper house of Parliament purposing to destroy the King the Quéene the Prince the nobles and commons there assembled and by their destruction to replant popery in England The treason discouered they broke forth into open rebellion Fourthly slaundrous Libels as the inuectiues of Alan and Parsons against Quéene Elizabeth and the State of Saunders against Her and her Parents and Counsaile of the Leaguers and Iesuites against King Henry the 3. and 4. of France and the rayling discourses written against Luther Zuinglius Caluin Beza Knox and all godly men declare Fiftly their impudent lies and fables in setting foorth their owne Religion and discommending the truth and such as eyther now or in time past professed it as the fabulous tales of Iacobus de voragine Surius Baronius and diuers writers of popish Histories will testifie Sixtly their publishing of counterfet bookes vnder the names of Fathers and the corrupting of Fathers by their expurgatorie indexes 7. Their impudent falsification of ancient Fathers and other writers as may bee prooued out of the allegations of Bellarmine Stapleton and other popish Proctors 8. Their false imputations laide vpon others and their impudent denials of thinges done by themselues 9. The diligent suppressing of the Books of holy Scripture and all Bookes written in vulgar tongues concerning matters of religion 10. The prohibiting of Christians to dispute reason or question of matters of faith 11. The ignorance blindnes of christians that know nothing but onely such matters as the false Fryars and Masse-priestes tel them 12 The impudent clamors raylings of this generation in Pulpits lying and slaundring all that professe the Gospell sincerely 13. The rigor of auriculer confession by meanes whereof the Popish faction vnderstandeth all mens secrets 14. The bloody crueltie of the popes agentes executioners and inquisitors Finally the rewardes and prayses that are giuen to those that trauaile eyther by writing or practise to maintaine the Popes cause Without these motiues all the motiues mentioned by Kellison were to no purpose As for vs wee haue two principall motiues to hold vs in the truth which would also mooue others to draw vnto vs if they knew them The first is the truth and iustice of our cause The next is the impieties blasphemies abhominations fooleries absurdities iniustice of Popery For the truth of our Religion weâ— offer to bring Scriptures councels Fathers antiquitie consent true succession law reason and all other proofes required in the iustification of Religion The reasons to deterre men from Popery we shal God willing deduce at large in a particular discourse Thus much may serue to requite Kellisons discourse of motiues to Religion for the present Chap. 4. Of the markes and properties of Heretickes THe name and nature of Heresie beeing so odious it is not to be maruelled if the Patrons thereof disguise themselues in their tearmes names
or the obliquity of the action but that he directeth their wicked actions to good endes which is the Doctrine of Saint Augustine in enchiridio ad Laurentium and diuers other places Melancthon also is moste wickedly slaundered by this false and wicked fellow for he hath no such wordes as those wherewith hee standeth charged Neither may we doubt but this fellowe that hath such leysure to prye into all mens faults wold haue set down Bezaes wordes and any thing writtē or taught by vs if the same had made for his purpose Wherefore seeing this K. setteth downe his owne malicious slaunders and not our words he may if he finde anye inconuenience or absurditie redounding thereof take the same wholy to himselfe and not impute it to vs. He may also forbeare to prooue that God is not the author of sinne For vnlesse himselfe haue any such wicked conceite we know no man that will maintaine any such blasphemy In his second Chapter of his fift Booke hee chargeth Caluin further with teaching that Gods will and power doth so domineere ouer the wil of a sinner that he cānot resist Gods motion which eggeth vrgeth him to sin Matters vtterly false forged For proofe hee citeth Lib. 3. instit c. 21. 6. et 8. But there is no such matter to be found in those places There also he is charged to say that Gods will is a necessity of things But neither doth he say any such thing in that place nor if hee should say that Gods absolute wil doth impose a necessitie of thinges doth it followe that God doth egge and vrge men to sinne It appeareth therfore that this lying companion sought not to finde out truth but to oppresse truth and the fauorers therof with lyes and slaunders deuised by himselfe Thirdly he supposeth that we teach that Gods commaundements are impossible and that a man can as soone touch the heauens with his finger as fullfill the least commaundement But this is so grosse a lye as a man may almost touch it with his finger For although we beleeue that noe man in this frailty of our nature after the fall of Adam is able perfectly to fulfill the whole Law of God yet absolutely and simply no man teacheth them to be impossible Nay we know they were possible to Adam in the state of innocencie and that now by grace many commaundemets may be performed But suppose we should say that the Law cannot perfectly bee performed yet should wee say no more then Ambrose and Hierome do teach in Galat. 3. and Chrysostome in Gal. 2. and Bernard serm 50. in cant and Thomas Aquinas in Gal. 3. lect 4. He wold prooue that the cōmaundements of God are easie and light But therin he sheweth his owne lightnesse that condemneth himselfe for not performing that which he taketh to be light The rest of his illations are meere fooleryes grounded vpon his owne fancyes In his fourth Chapter he would inferre that wee make God a most cruell Tyrant because we teach that no man is able to performe the whole Law of God perfectly But his inference is most wicked and blasphemous and could not proceede but out of the blasphemous thoughts of a wicked Masse-priest Out of our Doctrine no such matter is to bee inferred For as in matter of debts the Creditor may iustly exact his owne the Debtor hauing bound himselfe to pay and after proouing vnsufficient vnable so man is iustly punnished for not paying his debt whereto he is boūd which by his owne fault he is made vnable to pay Luther de seruo arb confesseth that in this obscure light of nature and debility of vnderstanding man cannot see why God should not bee vniust condemning him that cannot chuse but sinne But yet he accuseth not God eyther of injustice or cruelty as this man would haue it but rather accuseth man of blindenesse and ignorance And yet others do plainly see that God doth most iustly exact that at the hande of man which by his owne default hee is become vnable to performe Finally he chargeth the reformers that they pul down the true God out of his throne and place an Idole in the same of their owne imagination And his reason is first for that all Heretiks are Idolaters and next for that we hold that God is the author of sinne and of a bad nature vnreasonable and cruell But if all Heretikes be Idolaters then as the Papistes are grosse Heretiks so are they grosse Idolaters holding diuers brāches of the Simonian Carpocratian Collyridiā Angelican Manichean Pelagian Heresie and of diuers other damned Heresies Againe if all Idolaters pull God out of his Throne then the Papistes that giue Gods honor to creatures worship the Sacrament stockes and stones Idolatrosly do pull God as much as in them lyeth out of his Throne Finally if we haue cleared our selues from all the iniust imputations of this Sycophant and shewed that neither Caluin nor any of our teachers do hold that God is author of sinne or guilty of any iniustice then I hope the very Papistes thē-selues wil be ashamed to heare such blasphemous termes proceed frō their teachers bee more wary hereafter how they giue eare to our aduersaryes clamours It is one thinge to crye loud and another thing to bring sound proofe Sycophants obiect great crimes but wise Iudges proceed according to proofes Chap. 9. That our Doctrine giueth due obedience and respect both to Princes and to their Lawes HOW wickedly the Popes of Rome haue abused the clemency of Christian Princes it would require a long discourse to relate This breefly may be verified that they haue trod downe the maiestie of Kinges contemned their Lawes and set variance betwixt the Prince and his subiectes from time to time And yet as if the Doctrine of Popery were cleare in this poynt this K. blusheth not to obiect the faultes of his consortes to vs. Like vnto Parmenian the Donatist who when hee might bee ashamed of his owne faultes yet blushed not to accuse innocent Catholiques Cum pro tuis erubescere debueras saith Optatus to Parmenian Lib. 2. contr Parmen catholicos innocentes accusas The difference betwixt our Doctrine and Popery in this point is very great We say it is not lawfull for any subiect to lay violent handes vpon their annoynted Kinges The Papistes are taught to rebell against Kinges excommunicat by the Pope Nay Pius the fift in bulla contr Elizahethā denounceth them excōmunicate that would not stirre against Queene Elizabeth and take armes against her Secondly we say that the King is not subiect to any forraine Potentate They hold that it is necessary to saluation for the King of England to be subiect to the Pope and thinke men bound to beleeue it Nay they say the Pope is as farre aboue the Emperour as the Sunne aboue the Moone Thirdly we say that the Kinges Lawes concerning Ecclesisticall matters are to be obeyed The Papistes giue all power in Ecclesiasticall affaires to
should any deny them to be truly the Apostles successors Finally the defection of ordinary Priestes in the Romish Church being extraordinary we may not imagine that all ordinary rites and formes were to be obserued in the vocation of such as by the instinct of Gods holy spirit were stirred vp extraordinarily to restore the decayed partes and ruines of Gods Temple But sayth Kellison pag. 9. If their Preachers be sent by an ordinary mission let them shewe their succession And heere hee alleageth Tertullians wordes lib. de praescript aduers haeret concerning the orders of Bishops and succession from the Apostles And two places out of S. Augustine in Psal contr part Donati And contr epist fund where he speaketh of the succession of Bishops Againe he vrgeth vs if any thing were extraordinary in those which first reformed the Church to prooue their mission by miracles and runneth into a long discourse of the visibilitie of the Church of miracles and prophesies To which wee answere first that if the succession of Bishops were the onelye proofe of an ordinarie mission the Papists themselues were in bad tearmes hauing no proofes of their succession of popes so much bragged of but the testimony of Anastasius Platina Naucler Sabellicus Onuphrius Genebrard Baronius such like hungrie parasites of the Pope iarring and contending one against another like mastye Curres about a bone Secondly the Greekes Antiochians and Aegiptians pretend to this day succession of Bishops and yet are grossely fallen froÌ„ the faith want true Bishops Thirdly Tertullian S. Augustine speak of successioÌ„ of Bishops but neither of theÌ„ denyeth theÌ„ to bee Bishops or pastors that are not ordeined by a Bishop who was not ordered with al soleÌ„nities Fourthly we shew such a succession of Bishops as the Papists theÌ„selues cannot controle deriuing theÌ„ coÌ„cerning order externall formes from Bishops allowed by our aduersaries and concerning succession of Doctrine from the Apostles Fathers and auncient Bishops of the primitiue Church Fiftly the question concerning the visibilitie of the Church is diuers from that which concerneth succession For I hope K. will not say that hee euer saw the succession of Romish Bishops or that any Apostle saw his successors Lastly wee alleage that the old Prophets were sent extraordinarily and yet wrought no miracles Diuers apostolicall men likewise haue beene raysed vp by God at diuers times and yet wee reade not that eyther all of them prophecied or wrought miracles This being our answere of which Kellison could not be ignorant but that hee is eyther ignorant of matters in question or else voide of honesty and good dealing what is it I pray you that hee is able to alleadge against the vocation and mission of Gods ministers in our Churches First saith he Page 11. They say that the Apostles which were the first Bishops and Pastors had for a time their lawfull successors but that at the length the church fayled and the Pastors with it But while he talketh of mission he lyeth shamefully and without all commission For first wee distinguish both Bishops and ordinarie pastors from Apostles So doth the Apostle also Ephe. 4. Secondly we deny that Christs Church euer hath fayled Thirdly wee teach that the Apostles haue alwaies had some successors albeit neither in one place nor without all interruption If then he haue not fayled in true dealing let him set downe the authors names that haue affirmed this which hee reporteth and relate their words sincerely age 13. he addeth that Luther disobeyed the Pope and the Church and deuised a new Religion to cloake his villany But first the Pope and the Church are euill yoaked together For Christs sheepe heare not the voice of strangers Secondly these words of villany come out of his shop of mallice Lastly neuer shall this K. prooue that Luther deuised any new Religion For he onely impugned late errors and sought to bring Christians backe to the auncient Catholike faith Thirdly he shapeth an other answere for vs Page 14. maketh vs to say that wee had predecessors but they were inuisible But this abuse with he offereth vs is too grosse palpable for neither doe we make our predecessors inuisible Nor doe we denie that the ancient fathers holy Bishops of old time as they taught the Catholicke and apostolike faith and no more were out predecessors Fourthly hee telleth vs that such as pretend extraordinarie sending runne vnsent But he taketh vppon him too too arrogantlye to limit Gods power and seemeth plainely to contradict Gods word S. Paul Ephes 4 mencioneth Euangelists without limitation either of times or places and Saint Iohn Apocaly 11 foresheweth that God will giue power to his two witnesses preaching against the Kingdome of Antichrist and the abuses of their times Neither doth either Optatus or CypriaÌ„ or the Apostle speake any word against vs herein Optatus Lâ—b 2. contra parmen speaketh of some intruding donatists Cyprian of certaine presuÌ„ptuous Nouatians which as the Arch-priests Iesuites and Masse-priests doe in EnglaÌ„d thrust theÌ„selues into the ministerie in Africk without warrant The Apostle Eph. 4. leaueth out the Pope therefore ouerthroweth our aduersaries cause But hee saith not one word why Pastors and teachers may not sometime either hee sent extraordinarily or furnished with extraordinarie power Finally albeit the Church be built vpon a Rocke yet particular Churches Citties may fall into errors and hardly can bee reformed without some extraordinarie helpes Fiftly he affirmeth Page 19. that extraordinarie mission is alwaies to be prooued by extraordinarie signes and tokens of Prophecies or miracles And to this purpose hee feyneth that both Luther and Caluin endeuoured to prophecy and to worke miracles But the first is disprooued by the examples of the prophets and Apostles For neither doe we reade that all the prophets wrought miracles nor that all the Apostles prophesied Furthermore the Godly Martyrs of old time and the auncient Bishops were often indued with extraordinarie graces yet did they not all worke wonders and prophecy The second is disprooued both by our Doctrine and practise For neither doe wee now practise miracles or stand vpon prophecies nor doe wée teach that the Doctrine of truth is to be confirmed with miracles or prophecies To conuince vs this K. produceth the testimonye of Cochleus Surius Staphylus Genebrard Fontanus Bolsec and such like fellowes But their testimonies are not worth a Nut-shell being hired to speake shame of the popes aduersaries Hee is verie light of beleefe that giueth credit to the wordes eyther of enemies or hired parasites Finally he concludeth Page 28. that we haue no assurance of our Religion by the authoritie of our Preachers being able to say no more then false Apostles for proofe of their authoritie Hee doubteth not also to affirme that both Brownists and those of the family of Loue may as well alleadge Scriptures and pretend to bee sent of God as Caluin and Luther But first he sheweth himselfe a simple Doctor of Diuinitie
For what motiue can any man haue to beleeue that an vnlearned bougerly blinde and wicked Pope is supreme iudge of Religion that an obscure and infamous Italian hath power to depose the King of England that Christians are not to beleeue the articles of our christian faith nor Scriptures vnlesse they receiue them from the Popes chayre that Ecclesiasticall traditions of which the authours and defenders are not yet resolued are equall to holy Scriptures that the olde lattin vulgar translation of the Bible is authenticall and the originall text not or that Dogges do somtime eate Christes body or that Christes body and blood is sacrificed in the Masse although the same at the same instant be in heauen and is not consumed as is the manner of sacrifices and infinite such absurdities In the end of the first Chapter hee citeth diuers slaundrous reports of Luther and Caluin and talketh Idely of the good life of Papists or rather excuseth their lewd life notorious to the world He doth also alleage the number antiquity miracles and other qualityes of such as taught his religion Afterward he runneth backe to talke of the succession of Popes Finally by a tale out of Iosephus of the Iewes and Samaritans Temple he douteth not but he should winne the victory if he were to plead against vs. But if he plead no more wisely then he doth in this place his auditorye should haue good reason to hisse him from the barre For first his slanderous reportes against Luther and Caluin are matters deuised by Cochleus Staphilus Bolsecus and other popish parasites hired of purpose to deuise slanders against thē of which Bolsecus in publike synode reuoked his malicious libell But the matters we obiect to the Popes and their adherents are matters recorded in publik actes authētical histories the authors wherof were men fauouring popery Secondly this Lobster-faced fellow would blush to talk of the liues of the Italians and other the popes adherents but that he knoweth their lewde actes are concealed from the people of England by the remotenesse and distance of their Country And yet all that know Italy and the nations subiect to the Pope will say he hath no reason to stand much vpon their pietye or honestye Thirdly neuer shall he shewe eyther that the moderne Popes are the successors of the first Bishops of Rome or that the Popish Bishops that are now the marked slaues of Antichrist are the true successors of Austen the Monke and his fellowes Nay the Doctrine that wee professe being taught by them and the decretaline doctrine that we refuse being vnknowne to them it must needes followe that not the popish Wolues but our Bishops are their successors Finally the tale out of Iosephus doth little fit this K. purpose For neither hath the moderne Church of Rome any affinitie with the temple of the Iewes nor can this K. doe any such feates as he imagineth Was not then this surueyor both idle and vnaduised that runneth through so many impertinent matters to his particular purpose and so aduerse to his generall cause The last Chapter of his first book is yet more extrauagāt then al the rest For therin he speaketh not one word of the groūds of our Religion which are the things which he propoūded for the subiect of his discourse but of the Pope whome wee take to bee the head of Antichristes Kingdome and to bee so rightlye called although hee would gladlye prooue him to bee the supreme iudge in matters of Religion And his reason is for that euery Kingdome hath his King euerie Dukedome a Duke euerie Cittie a Major or Bayliffe euery Army a general euerie village almost hath a Constable c. hee prooueth the same also by Gods order both before the Law and after and by the example of Saint Peter and of the Bishops of Rome who as he saith were euer called the Vicars of Christ and successors of S. Peter And in the end hauing runne himselfe out of breath he concludeth that we haue no iudge in matters of Religion and so open a gap to all Heresies But if he come into his Countrie and reason no better the Constable of the parrish where he landeth if hee bee a man of any vnderstanding may doe well to set him by the heeles For First hee reasoneth absurdly from politick bodies to Christes mystical body Secondly if any argument might bee drawne from thence yet would this similitude ouerthrowe the Popes monarchy For albeit euerie Kingdome Armie Cittie and Village hath his gouernour yet it were absurd to make one King ouer all the world one commander ouer all armies one grand Maior or Constable ouer all the Maiors and Constables of the world Thirdly neyther was there one supreme iudge of matters of Religion before the lawe vnder the lawe or in the time of the Gospell as I haue at large prooued against Bellarmine in my Bookes De pōtifice Rom. which are to hot for such a tender fingred Surueyor to handle nor are we now to conforme our selues to the law but to Christes institution Fourthly for one thousand yeares after Christ shall not this ranging fellow prooue that the Bishops of Rome were called Christs Vicars The title of Peters successors is common to all true teachers succeeding Peter and importeth no generall commaund ouer the whole Church Fiftlye Theophilus Bishop of Antioche Lib. 2. Autolicum is grossely belyed So like wise is Chrysostome homil 34. in epist 1. ad Corinth Finally he wrongeth vs where he saith we haue no judge of matters of Religion For the onely supreme iudge that determineth infallibly is God speaking in Scriptures If any varietie bee about his determination the supreme iudge of all the church vpon earth is a lawfull generall councell proceeding according to Gods word In the meane while euerie nation is to stand to the definition of a nationall councel And to this iudge doe we submit our selues As for the Papists they submitte themselues to a blinde Pope that sometime beleeueth not and seldome vnderstandeth the Articles of the Christian faith Kellison therefore that dreameth of such a fellowes infallible iudgement hath little reason to talke against the proceeding vsed in the Church of England for deciding of matters of Religion Further hee hath neede to beware that the Constable of one parrish or other take him not within the sphere of his actiuitie least he place him in the supreme hole of the Stocks for his supreme idiotisme in matters of iudgement concerning religion Chap. 2. The foundations of Popish religion discouered to be most weake and foolish THus we haue séene how much this K. hath mistaken the grounds of our religion and how litle he hath to say against them Let vs therefore nowe consider his supposed groundes and the common foundations of the popish religion and what Christians are to thinke of them Kellison where he talketh of the grounds of our religion discourseth first of the mission of our Preachers and Lib. 1. cap. 1. concludeth
the Pope and say that the King therin is but an vsurper Fourthly we say that not only lay-men but also all Masse-priestes Monkes and Fryers ought to be subiect to the Prince These fellowes exempt their Clergie and their goods from Princes gouernement as appeareth by Bellarmines treatise de exemptione Clericorum and diuers decrees of Popes Finally we make Princes and Kinges soueraigne cōmaunders ouer their subiects and immediate exequutors of Gods lawes Contrariwise the papistes make them most base exequutioners of the Popes Lawes and therein preuaile so farre that they not only set Princes together by the eares one with another but make them the Popes hangmen and force them to persecute their owne innocent subiects if they wil not admit the Popes Idolatrous and Hereticall Religion But saith Kellison Lib. 6 c. 1. they teach that no Prince can binde a man in conscience to obey his Lawes and commaundements and giue subjectes good leaue to rebell and reuolte This he sayth and how prooueth he that which hee saith forsooth saith he Luther exhorted the Germaines not to take Armes against the Turke And in his Booke against the King of England called him all to naught Secondly he telleth vs of the Rebellion of the Boores in Germanie Thirdly he citeth certaine places out of Luther shewing that the Popes lawes or Princes positiue lawes binde not to mortall sin nor rule the conscience Lastly he spendeth much idle talke about the tumults in France Flaunders and Germany But first what maketh all this to lawes binding in conscience Secondly the Articles of his accusation containe manifest vntruthes For neither doe wee giue subiectes leaue to reuolt neither doe wee deny that Princes lawes doe binde in conscience as oft as they commaund any thing commaunded in Gods word or prohibite thinges by God prohibited If Luther respected not the Pope nor his decretale lawes it is no maruell seeing hee is no lawfull Prince but an Vsurper and the head and maintayner of Antichristes Kingdome Furthermore where hee and Caluin defend Christian mens libertye as touching their conscience they say no other thing then that which they haue learned and which euerie man may gather out of Saint Iames Chap. 4. where hee sayth there is owne Law-giuer that can saue and destroy As for Kellisons proofes they are eyther grounded vpon false reports or else containe matters impertinent First false it is that Luther exhorted the Germains not to take armes against the Turke Nay hee rather encouraged them to defend their countrie against the Turke onely shewing them that if they meant to preuaile against him they must first correct their liues and reforme their errors in Religion But whatsoeuer he said in this argument it concerneth this matter in question nothing Secondly hee was not King Henries subiect but dealt against him more freely as being by subtiltie of Papists set foorth to countenance the Popes leud cause Thirdly wee defend not the Rebelliō of the rustical Boores in Germany neyther did Luther spare to reprooue them and to write against them Beside that the cause of their insurrection was not Religion but temporall oppression Fourthly wee haue before declared what is Luthers Caluins meaning concerning the binding of mens consciences Fiftly the Germains and States of the low Countries are well able to cleare themselues from all blot of rebellion or imputation laid vpon them by this sycophant as may appeare to any that will reade their defences Finally the Christians in France neuer rebelled but onely tooke armes in defence of their liues against such as broke the Kings edictes and therefore haue beene iustifyed in their actions by the Kings themselues and by their edictes at diuers times Wherfore seeing their owne Kings did cleare them this swad hath no reason to accuse them In his second Chapter of his sixt booke he chargeth vs that our Doctrine dooth bring iudges and tribunall seates into contempt And his reason is partlye for that Luther and Caluin teach that the positiue lawes of Princes bind not in conscience and partlye for that they doe condemne the Popish Doctrine of freewill But his reason is so simple and soppish that it falleth of it selfe without our helpe For albeit the positiue lawes of Princes that haue no strength of Gods lawe doe not reach so farre as to binde the conscience yet all the lawes of Princes that haue their ground in Gods law doe binde the conscience also Likewise the authoritie of Princes is of God and therefore no man may resist thē without offence of conscience Furthermore albeit positiue lawes of Princes binde not in conscience yet they doe bind men to susteine the punishment inflicted by Princes lawes not direct contrarie to Gods lawes Finally albeit mā haue not freewil after the opinion of the Papists in discerning spirituall matters and dooing works pleasing to God tending to the ateining of eternal life yet he hath freewill to doe lewdly and therefore iustly deserueth to be punished This fellow therefore rather deserueth to bee punished that vnderstandeth our cause no better then admired for his profound sophistrie He addeth that it followeth by the Doctrine of these nouuellants that Princes haue no authoritie to commaund But then these olde hacsters must bring in new strange conclusions For as wee haue before declared wee maintaine the Princes authoritie against the vsurpation of the Pope and obey his lawes better then Papistes who for a long time haue stood for the Pope against their Princes both in France and other places Kellison like an old sycophant may therefore doe well seeing the Popes tyrannie is so newe to abstaine from charging others with noueltie and forbearing to rayle and lye to produce some better arguments In the third chapter of his sixt booke hee concludeth that wee bring Princes lawes into contempt and in the fourth and last Chapter that by our Doctrine neither the Prince is to rely vppon his Subjects nor Subiects vpon the Prince nor one vpon another And all this because Luther and Caluin teach that Princes meere positiue lawes doe not binde in conscience But as leapers that mistake their rising fall oft in the midst so disputers fayling in their groundes come short of their conclusion This position of Luther and Caluin I haue heeretofore shewed to haue beene quite mistaken by Kellison But had they taught so as he imagineth yet doe they neither bring lawes into contēpt nor breed any distrust or euil correspōdence betwixt Princes subiects For al Gods lawes binde in conscience mans lawes as farre as they haue vigor frō Gods law The authority of Princes is grounded vpon the Law of God From the same also not onely our duty towards our parents but also of husbands to their wiues wiues to their husbands of children to their parents contrarywise for the moste part receiueth strength Finally the same authoriseth diuers contracts willing vs so to doe to others as wee would haue others to doe to vs. Furthermore beside